So you think good story telling would be to follow up an open Horde rebellion against their own leader with another open Horde rebellion against their leader? That would be terrible.

Blizzard has also said that they make the story fit the gameplay, not the gameplay to fit the story. They have to keep the factions on a relatively even playing field. There will be minor shifts one way or the other, but to have one faction become the puppet of the other would be way to far of a swing and would be likely to anger a lot of Horde players.

Agreed.

As I've said before, because of the need for gameplay balance you mentioned the more the Horde is beat down in the Siege of Orgrimmar, the more story focus they'll get over the next expansion or two building themselves back up. Somehow I don't believe this is what Alliance players really want.

Best for the Horde to come out of the Siege as intact as could be reasonably expected, with a well-respected and independent leader at the helm. Now the loss of the Kor'kron is non-trivial and could and should have implications going forward. But I think those implications can be dealt with without unbalancing the narrative.

Roleplaying, hardcore Raiding, running LFR on the occasional weekend, PvPing, rolling alts, achievement hunting, pet battling, or just enacting an endless series of whims, I don't care how you play WoW. Just as long as you have fun doing it.

I want to know how Blizzard is going to get around the Alliance just walking away from Orgrimmar. At the very least they would leave "observers", like the Kor'Kron in Undercity. More likely the city would be divied up into occupation zones a la Berlin and Vienna, but there is no way that is going to happen. It's just... ridiculous for the Alliance to just walk away from Orgrimmar like nothing happened... but that's really the only thing Blizzard can do, for gameplay reasons. It's not like this is a one time occurrence of a blood-thirsty maniac taking over the Horde and attacking the Alliance.

So I guess I don't really want to know how, but rather if they are going to acknowledge the situation at all. I suspect it'll just be Vol'jin going "T'anks for de help, mon. Get out."

"The expansion ends on a high note for the Alliance. The full story has not yet been told!" (Polygon interview-MMOC front page)

Perhaps the the new Warchief won't be from the Horde at all....

Highly unlikely for the reasons I outlined above your post.

There are a couple ways to go about giving the Alliance a victory without beating the Horde down too much. One, admittedly extreme and probably unlikely, possibility is the Alliance destroying much of the Underhold simply to make the point that they aren't to be screwed with. With Gelbin Mekkatorque there, I think they could figure out a way to do it without risking the city above.

Roleplaying, hardcore Raiding, running LFR on the occasional weekend, PvPing, rolling alts, achievement hunting, pet battling, or just enacting an endless series of whims, I don't care how you play WoW. Just as long as you have fun doing it.

I want to know how Blizzard is going to get around the Alliance just walking away from Orgrimmar. At the very least they would leave "observers", like the Kor'Kron in Undercity. More likely the city would be divided up into occupation zones a la Berlin and Vienna, but there is no way that is going to happen. It's just... ridiculous for the Alliance to just walk away from Orgrimmar like nothing happened... but that's really the only thing Blizzard can do, for gameplay reasons. It's not like this is a one time occurrence of a blood-thirsty maniac taking over the Horde and attacking the Alliance.

So I guess I don't really want to know how, but rather if they are going to acknowledge the situation at all. I suspect it'll just be Vol'jin going "T'anks for de help, mon. Get out."

They killed Garrosh, what more can they do?
Their army is still surrounded by Horde from all side.
We probably took a lot of Kor'kron as prisoners, and they would be released instantly when the Alliance decide to go against the Horde Rebellion.

They walked in.
They killed Garrosh.
They wrecked the capital.
They loot the place (not too much).

Although it would be awesome if the Garrosh-fight ends with Infernals crashing down on all capitals, giving the Alliance a reason to quickly retreat and protect their own territory while at the same time giving an introduction to the new expansion.
We could also have 5.4 ending with both factions in the city, with 6.0 introducing this event (that I totally made up but would be awesome).

There are a couple ways to go about giving the Alliance a victory without beating the Horde down too much. One, admittedly extreme and probably unlikely, possibility is the Alliance destroying much of the Underhold simply to make the point that they aren't to be screwed with. With Gelbin Mekkatorque there, I think they could figure out a way to do it without risking the city above.

I could see the Underhold being destroyed, if for no other reason than to explain why you can't go there in Org 5.5 or 6.0 onward story wise.

"If you have to believe it on faith, you have no reason to believe it at all.” Aron Ra

Although it would be awesome if the Garrosh-fight ends with Infernals crashing down on all capitals, giving the Alliance a reason to quickly retreat and protect their own territory while at the same time giving an introduction to the new expansion.

That's actually a potentially good idea, as far as explaining why the Alliance doesn't occupy Orgrimmar, but it won't happen. Blizzard hasn't even announced the title of the next expansion yet.

Although Blizzard would have to do it in such a way that it doesn't come off as the Alliance going "Infernals? Fuck you guys, we're outta here", but still allow the Horde to keep Orgrimmar as more than smoking, Infernal-infested ruin.

I want to know how Blizzard is going to get around the Alliance just walking away from Orgrimmar. At the very least they would leave "observers", like the Kor'Kron in Undercity. More likely the city would be divied up into occupation zones a la Berlin and Vienna, but there is no way that is going to happen. It's just... ridiculous for the Alliance to just walk away from Orgrimmar like nothing happened... but that's really the only thing Blizzard can do, for gameplay reasons. It's not like this is a one time occurrence of a blood-thirsty maniac taking over the Horde and attacking the Alliance.

So I guess I don't really want to know how, but rather if they are going to acknowledge the situation at all. I suspect it'll just be Vol'jin going "T'anks for de help, mon. Get out."

Even from a lore perspective, we need to consider that the Horde rebellion might not be happy about being occupied. We don't know exactly how the Alliance and Horde rebels forces will compare when the dust settles, but there is little reason to assume the Alliance will be free to do whatever they please over the objections of the Horde rebels.

It's likely true that the Alliance has more troops available worldwide then the rebels do, but there is little reason to assume the Alliance have abandoned every other front on the planet. The rebels on the other hand have the home field advantage and are almost entirely focused on taking back Orgrimmar.

I think the Alliance is in a position to either receive some concessions or (as I proposed above) destroy the Underhold to make a point. However it's important they don't overreach and end up starting a completely new war that even if they do ultimately win would be an uphill battle with enormous. Even Wrathion believed the war would last for another year had the Alliance attempted to conquer Orgrimmar outright.

This isn't Berlin since Berlin had basically no anti-fascist partisans fighting alongside the Allies. In countries like Italy where there were lots of anti-fascist rebels, there was no serious post-war occupation (though Italy did make some territorial concessions).

Last edited by Falrinn; 2013-08-24 at 02:41 PM.

Roleplaying, hardcore Raiding, running LFR on the occasional weekend, PvPing, rolling alts, achievement hunting, pet battling, or just enacting an endless series of whims, I don't care how you play WoW. Just as long as you have fun doing it.

That's actually a potentially good idea, as far as explaining why the Alliance doesn't occupy Orgrimmar, but it won't happen. Blizzard hasn't even announced the title of the next expansion yet.

Although Blizzard would have to do it in such a way that it doesn't come off as the Alliance going "Infernals? Fuck you guys, we're outta here", but still allow the Horde to keep Orgrimmar as more than smoking, Infernal-infested ruin.

That's why I continued on it:
5.4 - Alliance places encampment around Orgrimmar.
(5.5 - No idea, but still camps.)
6.0 - A message is delivered to the Alliance general: "Stormwind is under attack by the Legion."6.0.1 - First patch could be about pushing them back.
Second patch about attacking their camps.
Third/last patch is where we counter-attack them in their own territory.

I think that idea sounds better than the silly ideas about Alliance being the boss in Orgrimmar or the ones about them just leaving.

Cliffhangers are okay when you're talking about a T.V. show, where you only have to wait until the next week to find out that *SPOILER* Hector looks at him */ENDSPOILER*. They're okay in books where, if you really want the answer, you can keep reading for as long as you like. As for a game like WoW, no thanks, I've been waiting for this question to be answered since MoP was announced, I'd rather not wait for a future patch.

Even from a lore perspective, we need to consider that the Horde rebellion might not be happy about being occupied. We don't know exactly how the Alliance and Horde rebels forces will compare when the dust settles, but there is little reason to assume the Alliance will be free to do whatever they please over the objections of the Horde rebels.

Under the circumstances, I wouldn't expect the Alliance to be free to do whatever they please, or even wish to. But they would definitely want to maintain a presence in Orgrimmar. There is simply no way they would participate in dethroning Garrosh, then simply hand the keys to Vol'jin, when the Horde has been belligerent to the point of total war not once, not twice, but thrice.

I think the Alliance is in a position to either receive some concessions or (as I proposed above) destroy the Underhold to make a point. However it's important they don't overreach and end up starting a completely new war that even if they do ultimately win would be an uphill battle with enormous. Even Wrathion believed the war would last for another year had the Alliance attempted to conquer Orgrimmar outright.

Destroying the Underhold would have all the impact of destroying Hitler's bunker. It does absolutely nothing to promote the Alliance's future security. The only way to do that is to maintain a presence in the city.

This isn't Berlin since Berlin had basically no anti-fascist partisans fighting alongside the Allies. In countries like Italy where there were lots of anti-fascist rebels, there was no serious post-war occupation (though Italy did make some territorial concessions).

The Italians deposed Mussolini and flipped sides on their own, before the war ended. Ergo, it's not a relevant analogy. Heck, the Russians occupied Paris for a while after the Napoleonic Wars.

There is just no realistic way the Alliance simply hands the next warchief the keys and leaves, short of the intervention of something like the Burning Legion invading. Not after two previous Horde instigated wars, the Wrathgate, and Garrosh's war.

Great, now I have to restart an old project of mine of a Saurfang HOPE style poster... LOL

#VoteSaurfang2013

"Ah... you have learned much... and learned well... an honorable battle.
In the end, I stood by the warchief, because it was my duty, and I am glad that it was you who struck me down.
May your strength... lead the horde... into a new era of prosperity..."